AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
After short argument, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the present petition qua petitioner no.1 namely, Shankar Singh @ Shankar Kumar Singh @ Shankar Kumar, who is the husband of O.P. No.2.
Request allowed.
The present petition qua petitioner no.1 stands dismissed as withdrawn.
During course of argument, it transpires that Mr. Amarnath Jha, learned counsel has filed another petition for quashing of impugned order regarding petitioner no.2, namely, Shambhu Kumar Singh, which is pending before one of the learned co-ordinate Bench as Cr. Misc. No.50069 of 2024.
In view of same, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition qua petitioner no.2 namely, Shambhu Kumar Singh also.
Request allowed.
Accordingly, the present petition qua petitioner no.2, namely, Shambhu Kumar Singh stands dismissed as withdrawn.
Now, the present petition survives only for petitioner no.3 namely, Lalita Devi, who is mother-in-law of O.P. No.2.
The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing of the order dated 30.05.2017 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura in Complaint Case No.672 of 2016, whereby the learned jurisdictional Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 406, 323, 504, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioner and others.
The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant/opposite party no. 2 was married to Shankar Singh (petitioner no.1) on 10.07.2011 according to Hindu rites and customs. It is alleged that after her marriage, she was subjected to physical and mental torture by her husband and his family members on account of demand of a motorcycle and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. It is further alleged that she was assaulted and ultimately, on 04.12.2016, her ornaments were taken away and she was ousted from her matrimonial home.
On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, Complaint Case No. 672 of 2016 was instituted against six accused persons. The statement of the complainant was recorded on solemn affirmation and, in course of enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, four witnesses were examined. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 30.05.2017, cognizance was taken against the accused persons.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is the mother-in-law of the complainant and there are general and omnibus allegations against her. It is submitted that the petitioner and her son, the husband of the complainant, are living separately. It is further submitted that the husband of the complainant had already solemnized another marriage and, therefore, the allegations made against the petitioner are not sufficient to constitute the offences alleged against her.
Learned counsel further submits that the learned court below has taken cognizance in a mechanical manner without properly examining whether the materials available on record disclose the ingredients of the alleged offences against the petitioner.
This Court has considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and has perused the materials available on record.
It is well settled that at the stage of taking cognizance, the Magistrate is required to apply his judicial mind to the materials available before him and to ascertain whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused. At the same time, where the allegations against a relative of the husband are general and omnibus in nature and do not disclose any specific role attributable to such relative, continuation of the criminal proceeding would amount to abuse of the process of the Court.
Reliance has been placed to the judgement of Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083, where the Apex Court has reiterated the need for the High Court to examine whether the allegations in a matrimonial dispute disclose a specific role of the relatives sought to be prosecuted. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has cautioned against permitting criminal proceedings to continue against relatives on the basis of vague and omnibus allegations.
In the present case also, on a careful consideration of the complaint petition and the materials collected during inquiry, this Court finds that the allegations against the petitioner are general in nature. No specific overt act has been attributed to the petitioner which would prima facie constitute the offences for which cognizance has been taken. The fact that the petitioner is the mother-in-law, by itself, cannot be a ground for making her face a criminal trial in the absence of specific allegations disclosing her involvement in the alleged acts of cruelty or dowry demand.
Further, the materials on record indicate that the husband of the complainant had already solemnized another marriage. The petitioner is stated to be living separately from the complainant’s husband. These circumstances, coupled with the absence of any specific allegation against the petitioner, make the continuation of the criminal proceeding against her unjustified.
This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that the learned court below has not properly appreciated the materials available on record before taking cognizance against the petitioner. The allegations, even if, taken at their face value, do not disclose the necessary ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 30.05.2017 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura in Complaint Case No.672 of 2016 with all its consequential proceedings qua petitioner no.3 namely, Lalita Devi is hereby quashed and set aside.
The present petition stands allowed.
Office is directed to communicate a copy of the judgment to the learned trial court forthwith.